Yeah, this. My home state's college's CS program boasted it was one of the best in the northwest. My friends that went through it constantly had to ask me to explain simple stuff to them because the professor's assignments were wrong or confusing.
Compare that to our local community college, which seemed to have a much more well-rounded course and taught the fundamentals in a way that made much more sense.
Anecdotal of course but certainly defies the "rule".
Another anecdote: I did maybe 100 interviews while I worked at Uber. If I had to guess, I'd say 30% were from university grads (or soon-to-be grads).
Of those, most couldn't hardly write a line of code. Several candidates in the same age group came from a non-college/-university background and usually outshone those who did.
The fact that so many people are getting CS degrees and yet can't even FizzBuzz is alarming.
Is it the students? How many people are going into CS because they've had a taste of programming somewhere outside of school and decided they want to be a software engineer, and how many of them just get into CS because they heard that CS grads have very good employment prospects (Low unemployment, high salaries)? Anecdotally, I can tell you that during my senior project for my CS degree, someone in my group admitted to hating coding, but was pushed into CS by family, and that he couldn't code worth a damn.
Or is it the schools? In my school, the first two years were much heavier on the code, where the latter two years were heavier on CS theory. But in both cases, the quizzes and tests were on syntax and other things that could be answered with a short answer, or they were multiple choice. The only time your coding ability was tested was in the homework, which is easily plagiarized with Google and Stack Overflow.
Cheating is really rampant in CS degree programs and it’s very difficult to do an actual test of coding skills in a reasonable timeframe rather than pure memorization.
We had a decent solution to this in my undergraduate school.
Tests were basically all theory. Practical knowledge came from labs and everyone did the majority of their homework on lab computers that had no network connection. Not everyone was a rockstar of course, but as I recall pretty much everyone was at least a passable programmer in the end. Of course that was the early 90s...
So much of this. In my CS class, I could hardly find anyone who actually had some curiosity to learn. Everyone does their homework by sharing answers on the class chat. And in team projects, either there is one person who does all the work, or they end up copying from google and stackoverflow.
> The fact that so many people are getting CS degrees and yet can't even FizzBuzz is alarming.
CS contains more disciplines than just software engineering. Some people get into CS but have no interest/knack for coding: it just doesn't "click" for them the way it does for others, and they will fallback to rote memorization/copy-pasting from StackOverflow to scrape over the line.
I did Calculus 1 & 2 as part of my CS; but today, I don't think I'd be able to solve the FizzBuzz of Calculus, Linear Algebra, (or even the finer points of OS process schedulers if I'm being completely honest). I'd be alarmed if Software Engineering graduates weren't able to solve FizzBuzz
Not to nitpick your Uber anecdote, but the "candidates in the same age group came from a non-college/-university background and usually outshone those who did" probably had to have some strong non-university background like significant practical experience in projects or work to pass the resume filter process to make their way to your interview stage. So there's probably a great deal of selection bias in that specific example.
State colleges serve the entire state, or a large portion of it (i.e., University of Kentucky, Eastern Kentucky University) are are typically universities instead of colleges.
Community colleges serve a smaller area, typically one county and its neighbors. Community colleges often have a much higher emphasis on trades and job prep. They will often offer more 2 year associate degrees, trade certifications and less 4 year degrees. They are rarely universities.
In the USA Community College can mean a private or publicly funded 2 year university, college or trade school. A state university is pubicly funded and can be a community colleges. See the New York State SUNY system for an example. There is also the New York City CUNY system which is publicly funded by the city at the local level.
I went to "Queensborough Community College", a CUNY university in NYC. So I tend to define "community college" as a publicly funded 2 year university/college.
State University: typical higher-learning university that requires application and awards degrees. Funded in part by its US state via taxes.
Community College: no application, no traditional degrees, no prior learning required. Often vocation in focus. Adult classes. Anyone can attend (dropouts, elderly, anyone). You even just sign up for individual classes. You, 8589934591, could likely sign up for an online class next semester/quarter. Some are highly regarded, Foothill College in SV for example.
Just for my understanding. Is the person who I replied to saying that even though state univ are "considered" better, their personal experience is that community college (which is considered inferior to state) students performed better?
The difference is also one of focus. A Community college will offer things like a 2 year certificate course in .Net Enterprise Development, rather than 4 year degrees in Computer Science.
If you need a junior .Net Enterprise developer to write WPF apps in C# to talk to a SQL Server using LINQ, then it is very likely that the student from the community college, who has spend 2 years focusing very practically on learning exactly those technologies, will be able to perform better out of the gate compared to the university student whose education has a broader and more theoretical base.
In theory the University student should be 'better' in the long run since they have a deeper understanding of the field as a whole and should be able to solve harder problems and more quickly transition to new technologies, but that is of course up for debate. And most companies don't need to solve many hard problems, they need a WPF app that can talk to SQL Server using LINQ.
The difference in curriculum in the Community College I went to and the "real" college I am going to right now are astounding. There are four year CS students who are going to college and don't know how to write a line of code, contrast that to the community college where the expectation is that you create real function programs from scratch. I wonder if this is the case with all colleges, and if so why are FAANG companies not recruiting from CC's by default.
Any one student may happen to be a genius at a lower tier school, but comparing population averages, it's pretty clear that smarter pupils go to MIT or Harvard than less prestigious universities and I don't see why this would be controversial. Some people are smarter than others. It doesn't make them more valuable as human beings, but there are real differences in the world.
It's controversial because that assertion assumes that entrance to MIT, Harvard etc. is primarily based on IQ (or whatever other metric of "smartness" one uses). It is apparent that admission to these universities is based on many things other than IQ, and that IQ may in fact be a lesser component than other things, such as socioeconomic status (which leads to attending schools that prepare one for applying, being able to participate in activities that pad a CV, etc).
I didn't say there weren't other factors, there clearly are, but there are real differences in smarts between schools and to consider this controversial is something I think is more of a product of our present moment than something that people really deep down believe.
And I actually think I can speak to this with some amount of personal experience. I've been at both a lower tier college and a best-in-the-country university. When I was 11 I wanted to learn how to write software so I took courses nights, weekends and summers at the near by college until I was 14. I know how smart the class was and it was no where near as smart as the engineering students at the top tier university.
But that is ok! I think we overvalue intelligence in modern society, but to pretend that there are no differences is undervaluing the truth for the sake of political correctness or ideology.
I think you're confounding competence and skill levels with "smarts". I wouldn't argue that the output of elite schools is not measurably different than that of e.g. state schools, but I think your view that the intrinsic quality (e.g. IQ) of the people is different is mistaken and not backed by any evidence.
Tangentially, I think it is lazy to say somebody who is disagreeing with you is just being "politically correct" or "a product of the present moment". I see no evidence for claims like yours, which strike me as more ideologically driven than you might believe.
Going to MIT and Harvard is more about ambition than "smarts" is my thought on it.
On average smarter, but that more has to do with population size than anything. If you limit the comparison to the top N from state schools so that you were looking at the same population size, state schools would end up out in front on the "smarts" scale but lose on the "ambition" scale.
It's hard to justify the extra 200K for MIT CS degree tuition vs many public in-state universities' CS major.
My take is, if you are interested in academic research and theory study, going to ivy leagues makes sense, or if you're into law/business/medical majors, school ranking matters a lot. For a high paid IT job at undergraduate degree level, ivy league makes absolutely no sense, the extra $200K tuition is also really just a net loss.
This is an obvious and observable fact. An MIT trained programmer is probably smarter than a CS grad from a big state school. To deny this is to deny the obvious difference between an elite CS education and a run-of-the-mill state school education.
Of course one is better than the other.
As someone who went to a state school this does not bother me at all. CS education is not locked behind some door in a secret location - its open to anyone with internet access.
What makes one programmer better than the next is the extent to which he invests in educating himself.
This is true, but most of them don't go to top tier schools. Which is not at all the same thing as saying most people who go to top tier schools aren't smarter than average. This fact is the root of a lot confusion in the area.
I don't think anyone out of college for more than a few years thinks the "tier" of college you went to is the ultimate arbiter of how competent you are and can ever achieve.
Believe it or not, _statistically_ speaking, top tier STEM schools do have way more smarter students per my experience. Prestigious Universities earned their fame for the most part.
Idk about the "Prestigious Universities earned their fame for the most part" when implying that then causes their students to become way smarter.
IMO to compete in the "college admissions race", smart/motivated students will often compete like crazy to get into the prestigious university system. So because so many very smart/motivated students compete to get into the programs, the prestigious universities get their pick of top tier students who will end up graduating who could turn out to be smart/competent programmers regardless of the actually quality of the program.
I'm not saying these top schools have crap programs, I'd imagine they do have great programs as well, but I'd guess those same students would become good/competent programmers coming out of any program.
Put a NBA genius player in a community college basketball team will be hard to reach his potential. People surrounding you can make a big difference. Birds of same feather not only flock together, they can flock better/faster together and enjoy that process too.
obviously we are talking about statistics, so of course specific examples exist that run counter to the trend. But without a doubt, I am 100% certain that on average the incoming CS class to MIT is smarter than students in the cs program at some very low ranked state school.
you can see the difference in which textbooks the school uses. It would be impossible to teach real analysis with Rudin at an average school or community college.
Or the math 55 sequence at Harvard, which basically gives students more mathematical training in a year than the average university student will get in an math entire degree.
Better prepared I would say. There are plenty of kids that don't get the opportunity to show how smart they are. They grow up in the projects, have to work nights to help their family, some have to join gangs to survive. You swap they're upbringing with someone who's parents got to spend 100k on their high school education, provide them the things like a car, so they don't have to ride the bus a hour to and from school, and they'd be a lot different. It's really easy to be a lot smarter when you have a support system that nudges you along the way. Now agreed, there are some kids that really are smarter, but mostly it's about being prepared to handle that rigor.
My opinion is that nurture affects nature, so yes if we optimize childhood development it would naturally lead to better outcomes.
However I do believe people have a “natural” ceiling based on genetics. Meaning that no matter how great your nurture environment is, you could never become a top NBA basketball player or a Nobel prize winner.
Now I’m not saying MIT is either of those things, but it’s certainly difficult to get in and not simply a by-product of your “nurture” environment but some interplay with your “nature”. Although I’m sure with a timely $20M gift from your parents your chances of getting in would increase substantially, regardless of your qualifications.
Although I wouldn't contest your opinion about "ceilings" etc, because I don't know much about it, I would contest that elite universities select from a pool that is above most people's top end. I suspect the average intelligence of Harvard, MIT, or Stanford students is higher than the national average but still within the first deviation - in other words, most people in the population who are interested in university are probably "smart enough" by nature to succeed at one of these schools.
Socioeconomic factors playing a role (even a majority role, in my opinion) in access to elite education isn't about $20 million gifts. It's about living in neighbourhoods that have good primary and secondary schools; it's about living around peers who think going to university and even elite universities is normal and achievable; it's about being able to afford "personal rounding" activities like organized sports or music lessons; it's about being rich enough to be able to afford to give volunteer hours.
This "privilege" doesn't make those people bad or invalidate how hard they worked, but we should avoid thinking their success is due to some innate, "natural" superiority like just being smarter.
while I agree, that very smart children can be victims of their childhoods, not everyone can prep their way into MIT. that is why Harvard and Yale are more prestigious, its more associated with the powerful, not purely the most academically inclined.
To be clear I grew up fairly poor myself with no support system, but not that bad with violence, just trailer park poor, you can tell smart children at a very young age, kindergarten it will be obvious if a student is mathematically gifted(for whatever that is worth, it is certainly not the end all be all indicator of future success).
my point is that MIT will have a higher percentage of mathematically gifted students, because it isn't something that can be prepped for.
I guess I would be curious on how much a difference it really is , if you could completely control for environment, but even then the difference still exists.
> my point is that MIT will have a higher percentage of mathematically gifted students, because it isn't something that can be prepped for.
What are you talking about? The requirements to get into MIT are not mathematical genius. It's above average quantitative skills. And you can prep for the standardize math requirements quite easily. All of my high school friends did, and some managed to get into MIT.
you obviously have a pretty strong bias. I didn't say its a requirement, I said they would have a higher percentage of gifted students.
Also the requirements are not "above average", a math SAT of 750 is in the 95% percentile of SAT takers, which is already below average for MIT. Even then, the "average" student isn't even taking a college readiness test. You are grossly overestimating what average is.
Can you clarify how this can't be prepped for, and is a marker of intelligence instead of also being explained by average intelligence, coupled with means ($$) and drive?
I attended a top school. I can assure you my classmates weren't on the whole more intelligent. They did have more drive, better study habits, more external forces (parents) pushing them. Some were extraordinary, but not the average. I would have trouble saying as a body they were more intelligent than say those that went to large state schools.
Although I agree that the average student at one of those schools is much better than one at a lower ranked school, I think there is a false equivalency at play here. Enrollees in Math55 are not representative of all math students at Harvard.
In my experience, the average student of a prestigious institution is just as good as an upper decile student from a decent university. That said, the top end of those at top colleges are truly world-class. At the end of the day, these universities have historically educated the elite: there is discussion to be had on legacy admissions and paper-mill research groups that pad the resumes of high school applicants with research of little merit.
don’t mean to detract from the conversation, but isn’t math 55 just elementary algebra and analysis? surely this is insufficient at the vast majority of schools to constitute a math degree
> different definitions
fair enough. certainly some bias from me, here
but, i’d still be stunned if introductory algebra, analysis at a baby/papa rudin level, and some point set topology would be sufficient enough to be called a math degree
guess who got into a teir 1 uni abroad but doesn't have enough money to be able to go and now is stuck in a teir 3 uni in their home country? me! and possibly many others. my takeaway-a. if I got in a lot of idiots like me also did and b. if I'm not an idiot a lot of other non idiots also end up at teir 3 unis so don't judge a person by their uni
Compare that to our local community college, which seemed to have a much more well-rounded course and taught the fundamentals in a way that made much more sense.
Anecdotal of course but certainly defies the "rule".
Another anecdote: I did maybe 100 interviews while I worked at Uber. If I had to guess, I'd say 30% were from university grads (or soon-to-be grads).
Of those, most couldn't hardly write a line of code. Several candidates in the same age group came from a non-college/-university background and usually outshone those who did.